38372 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 136 /Thursday, July 16, 1998 / Notices

Initiation of Review

Pursuant to the Department’s

regulations at 19 (CFR 351.214(b),

Kohap and HRI certified in their June

30, 1998 submissions that they did not

export merchandise to the United States

during the period of the investigation

(POI) (November 1, 1989 through April

30, 1990), and that they were not

affiliated with any exporter or producer

of the subject merchandise to the United

States during the POI. Kohap and HRI

submitted documentation establishing

the date on which the merchandise was

first entered for consumption in the

United States.

In accordance with section

751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act and section

351.214(d) of the Department’s

regulations, we are initiating new

shipper reviews of Kohap and HRI for

the antidumping duty order on PET film

from the Republic of Korea. These

reviews cover the period June 1, 1997

through May 31, 1998. We intend to

issue the final results of the review no

later than 270 days from the date of

publication of this notice.

We will instruct the Customs Service

to allow, at the option of the importer,

the posting, until completion of the

review, of a bond or security in lieu of

a cash deposit for each entry of the

merchandise exported by Kohap and

HRI, in accordance with 19 CFR

351.214(e).

Interested parties may submit

applications for disclosure under

administrative protective order in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.305(b).

This initiation and this notice are in

accordance with section 751(a) of the

Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and

section 351.214 of the Department’s

regulations (19 CFR 351.214).

Dated: July 10, 1998.

Roland L. MacDonald,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–19018 Filed 7–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–583–824]

Polyvinyl Alcohol From Taiwan:

Amended Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Amended Final

Results of the Administrative Review of

the Antidumping Duty Order on

Polyvinyl Alcohol from Taiwan.

SUMMARY: On June 16, 1998, the

Department of Commerce published the

final results in this administrative

review (63 FR 32810). Subsequent to the

publication of the final results, we

received timely comments from E.I. du

Pont de Nemours & Co. alleging a

ministerial error. After analyzing the

comments submitted, we agree and are

amending our final results to correct

this ministerial error. This amendment

to the final results is published in

accordance with 19 CFR 353.28(c)

(April 1997).

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 16, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brian Smith at (202) 482–1766, or

Everett Kelly at (202) 482–4194, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20230.

APPLICABLE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS:

Unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the Act’’), as

amended, are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’).

Additionally, unless otherwise

indicated all citations to the

Department’s regulations are to 19 CFR

Part 353 (April 1997).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On June 16, 1998, the Department of

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)

published in the Federal Register the

final results of the administrative review

of the antidumping duty order covering

the period of May 15, 1996, through

April 30, 1997, on polyvinyl alcohol

from Taiwan. See, Polyvinyl Alcohol

from Taiwan: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 63 FR 32810. Subsequently, on

June 18, 1998, respondent E.I. du Pont

de Nemours & Co. (‘‘DuPont’’) submitted

a ministerial error allegation. The

petitioner, Air Products and Chemicals,

Inc., did not submit comments

concerning DuPont’s clerical error

allegation.

A summary of the allegation along

with the Department’s response is

discussed below. We are hereby

amending our final results, pursuant to

Section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR

353.28(c), to reflect the correction of the

error which is clerical in nature.

Scope of Review

The product covered by this review is

polyvinyl alcohol (‘‘PVA’’). PVA is a

dry, white to cream-colored, watersoluble synthetic polymer. Excluded

from this review are PVAs covalently

bonded with acetoacetylate, carboxylic

acid, or sulfonic acid uniformly present

on all polymer chains in a concentration

equal to or greater than two mole

percent, and PVAs covalently bonded

with silane uniformly present on all

polymer chains in a concentration equal

to or greater than one-tenth of one mole

percent. PVA in fiber form is not

included in the scope of this review.

The merchandise under review is

currently classifiable under subheading

3905.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States

(‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the HTSUS

subheading is provided for convenience

and customs purposes, our written

description of the scope is dispositive.

Amended Final Results of Review

DuPont alleges that the Department

made a ministerial error in calculating

constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) for its

sales of further manufactured PVA.

DuPont claims that the alleged

ministerial error occurred during the

process wherein the Department, after

the preliminary results were published,

changed the way it calculated CEP for

DuPont’s sales of further manufactured

PVA. In the preliminary results, DuPont

states, the Department calculated CEP

the same way for sales of imported PVA

as it did for sales of further

manufactured PVA. In the preliminary

results, we calculated CEP for sales of

further manufactured PVA by deducting

from the starting price discounts and

rebates, movement expenses, and direct

and indirect selling expenses associated

with DuPont’s economic activities

occurring in the United States. We also

deducted an amount for profit and

further manufacturing costs (see

Calculation Memorandum for the

Preliminary Results for E.I. duPont de

Nemours & Co., dated February 2, 1998).

In its case brief, the petitioner

contended that our computer program

failed to find comparable matches for

PVA sold by DuPont in the United

States and Australia because of the

omission of a critical conversion factor.

The petitioner indicated that since the

further manufactured product is

comprised of only a fraction of the

imported PVA, the amount reported in

DuPont’s variable manufacturing costs

for sales of further manufactured

merchandise represented the costs for

only that fraction of subject

merchandise. Accordingly, the

petitioner argued that the Department

should adjust the reported variable

manufacturing costs for U.S. sales of

further manufactured merchandise by
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 136 /Thursday, July 16, 1998 / Notices 38373

stating the per-unit costs on the same

basis as the variable manufacturing

costs of the Australian sales (see Case

Brief on behalf of Petitioner Air

Products and Chemicals, Inc. at page

19). DuPont did not object to the

petitioner’s comment.

Because further manufactured PVA

comprises only a percentage of subject

merchandise, we agreed with the

petitioner that the prices, costs and

expenses involved in the further

manufactured product should be based

on the same percentage of subject

merchandise incorporated in the further

manufactured sales at issue.

Accordingly, in the final results, we

adjusted the reported amounts of

variable and total manufacturing costs,

gross unit price, and CEP selling

expenses for further manufactured PVA

by a conversion factor (i.e., the valueadded ratios reported in DuPont’s

Section E submission) in order to state

the prices, costs, and expenses of further

manufactured PVA on a per-unit basis

(USD/lb) of imported PVA (see

Calculation Memorandum for the Final

Results for E.I. duPont de Nemours &

Co., dated June 9, 1998).

While DuPont agrees that the

Department was correct in altering its

preliminary calculation of the CEP sales

at issue, DuPont claims that because the

further manufactured PVA comprises

only a percentage of subject

merchandise, the quantity involved in

the further manufactured product

should also have been adjusted to reflect

the same percentage of subject

merchandise incorporated in the further

manufactured sales at issue. Instead,

DuPont asserts that for the final results,

rather than adjust the quantity to reflect

the actual amount of PVA used, the

Department converted prices from units

of dollars per kilogram of further

manufactured PVA to dollars per

kilogram of imported PVA by dividing

the unit prices of further manufactured

PVA by the above-mentioned valueadded ratios (see Polyethylene

Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip

from the Republic of Korea; Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 60 FR 42835,

42845 (August 17, 1995)(where the

Department made the same type of

adjustment to CEP calculation for sales

of further manufactured merchandise).

Thus, DuPont contends, the effect of

multiplying these converted prices (in

dollars per kilogram of the imported

PVA) by the total quantity of further

manufactured PVA was a significant

overstatement of the quantity of

merchandise subject to antidumping

duties (i.e., subject merchandise) and,

therefore, the amount of dumping. Thus,

DuPont claims that the Department

should make this adjustment to the

reported quantity for its sales of further

manufactured products.

We agree that a ministerial error was

made in our margin calculation as

alleged by DuPont. Without adjusting

the reported quantity for DuPont’s sales

of further manufactured PVA to reflect

the amount of subject merchandise

actually used in the further

manufactured sales, we incorrectly

multiplied the value of imported PVA

by the quantity of further manufactured

PVA when we should have used the

percentage of subject merchandise

incorporated in the further

manufactured PVA. For a detailed

discussion, see Memorandum to Louis

Apple, Office Director, from Team,

dated July 6, 1998. See also, Circular

Welded Non-Alloy Steel Pipe from the

Republic of Korea: Amendment of Final

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 63 FR 2200

(January 14, 1998), in which the

Department amended its final results

due to a ministerial error in calculating

interest expense, which resulted in an

overstatement of the interest expense

factor and, consequently, of the

dumping margin.

Accordingly, we are amending our

final results. We hereby determine the

following weighted-average margin

existed for the period May 15, 1996,

through April 30, 1997:

Manufacturer/producer/exporter

Original

margin

(percent)

Revised

margin

(percent)

E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co. .......... 9.46 4.20

Assessment Rates

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. We have calculated an importerspecific duty assessment rate based on

the ratio of the total amount of AD

duties calculated for the examined

transactions in the POR to the total

entered value of the same transactions.

This rate will be assessed uniformly on

all entries of that particular importer

made during the POR. The Department

will issue appraisement instructions

concerning the respondent directly to

the U.S. Customs Service.

The amended cash deposit

requirement will be effective upon

publication of this notice of amended

final results of this administrative

review for all shipments of the subject

merchandise entered, or withdrawn

from warehouse, for consumption on or

after the publication date, as provided

for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act, at the

cash deposit rate for DuPont indicated

above.

This deposit requirement shall remain

in effect until publication of the final

results of the next administrative

review.

The amended final results of this

administrative review are in accordance

with section 751(h) of the Act and 19

CFR 353.28. This amendment to the

final results is published in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.28(c).

Dated: July 9, 1998.

Richard W. Moreland,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–18886 Filed 7–15–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–201–504]

Porcelain-on-Steel Cookware From

Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review.

SUMMARY: On January 9, 1998, the

Department of Commerce published the

preliminary results of the administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on certain porcelain-on-steel cookware

from Mexico (63 FR 1430). The review,

the tenth review of the underlying

order, covers Cinsa, S.A. de C.V. and

Esmaltaciones de Norte America, S.A.

de C.V., manufacturers/exporters of the

subject merchandise to the United

States and the period December 1, 1995,

through November 30, 1996. We gave

interested parties an opportunity to

comment on the preliminary results.

Based on our analysis of the comments

received and the correction of certain

clerical and computer program errors,

we have changed the preliminary

results. The final results are listed below

in the section ‘‘Final Results of

Review.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 16, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kate Johnson or David J. Goldberger,

Office 5, AD/CVD Enforcement Group II,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone: